A Look at DOJ vs Georgia Tech: Part One

We should be remanded to the trial court any day (actually expected it a week or two ago). While we wait on that, let’s review the DOJ’s complaint vs Georgia Tech, which brings 8 claims:

Count 1: Presentment of False Claims; 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1)(A)

Count 2: False Record or Statement; 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1)(B)

Count 3: Fraud; Federal Common Law

Count 4: Negligent Misrepresentation; Federal Common Law

Count 5: Negligent Misrepresentation; Federal Common Law

Count 6: Unjust Enrichment; Federal Common Law

Count 7: Payment by Mistake; Federal Common Law

Count 8: Breach of Contract; Federal Common Law

In the ‘Nature of the Action’ section, we have a few paragraphs worth highlighting:

Okay, DOJ. Which researcher are you talking about?

Oops. Is that the same guy we are in litigation with to compel compliance with the Open Records Act?

Lets get to some of the meat of what Georgia Tech did (which generally relates to failing to comply with cybersecurity requirements):

There are many pages devoted to generally outlining the parties, the sections of contracts relating to cybersecurity requirements, and federal regulations. They also go on to highlight reports submitted by Antonakakis marked “CUI”, showing a general awareness of the sensitivity of information necessitating cybersecurity compliance.

Lets highlight a few other paragraphs from the 99 page complaint:

What’s with the aversion to antivirus?

See the rest of the complaint here, or we will have a second email highlighting the remainder tomorrow.